« Nancy Pelosi Has My Vote for Minority Leader | Main | The Growth of Government Salaries and the Breaking of an Age-old Agreement »
November 9, 2010
Why Government Handout Programs and Affirmative Action Must be Scaled Back or Ended
Writing in the Washington Post, Anne Applebaum makes an argument that you often hear from the left:
In Alaska, a preview of the GOP's future By Anne Applebaum Tuesday, November 9, 2010...For whatever the reason, the hypocrisy at the heart of the (Republican)party - and at the heart of American politics - is at its starkest in Alaska. For decades, Alaskans have lived off federal welfare. Taxpayers' money subsidizes everything from Alaska's roads and bridges to its myriad programs for Native Americans. Federal funding accounts for one-third of Alaskan jobs. Nevertheless, Alaskans love to think of themselves as the last frontiersmen, the inhabitants of a land "beyond the horizon of urban clutter," a state with no use for Washington and its wicked ways.
...Poor Boehner must feel pulled in two directions, particularly because so many Republicans - and so many Americans - don't practice what they preach. They want lower taxes, higher defense spending, more Social Security and, yes, balanced budgets. They want the government to leave them alone, but at the same time they aren't averse to the odd federal subsidy.
Harde har har! Those hypocritical Republicans! They criticize government programs yet they take money from them!
And it 's just this sort of attitude from liberals that is the very reason we must end these programs now.
We see a similar argument used against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; he was the beneficiary of affirmative action at Yale, yet now he opposes said benefit, ergo he is a hypocrite.
A Liberal Plot?
If I didn't believe in conspiracy theories then I would say that the entire purpose behind extensive government handout, welfare er, "benefits" programs and quota, racial preference, I mean "affirmative action" is to ensnare people so that they are not allowed to protest.
Let's run through how liberals think:
- Massive government benefits and affirmative action programs are good
- The best way to win an argument is to disallow your opponent from making theirs
- If you receive a benefit you are not allowed to protest it
The solution, eureka!, is to make sure that
- The benefits are so widespread and part of the fabric of the economy that unless people are willing to live as recluses they must participate in them
- Structure the programs so that no one can really be sure if they are a direct beneficiary or not, and thus cannot really opt out
Applebaum is a hack liberal making a shallow argument, but there are a lot of those in the pages of the Washington Post (Richard Cohen and Eugene Robinson come to mind). That every-day liberals take their cues from these people is what's truly disturbing.
If liberals wish to debate the merits of this or that "benefit" or "affirmative action" program then fine, state your case. But this insanity of creating huge programs that everyone is more or less forced to participate in (think Social Security) and then attacking anyone who dares speak a word against them has got to stop.
Posted by Tom at November 9, 2010 9:00 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1659
Comments
I have encountered the "so you're going to refuse social security?" challenge.
My answer: Yes, I am, as soon as you return my money, with interest and penalties.
To be fair, I'll assume the same interest and penalty schedule as the IRS. That's all I need, and I won't take a penny in social security.
Posted by: Ben at November 11, 2010 4:10 PM
Great answer Ben, I think I'll use it the next time a liberal challenges me with that one!
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at November 11, 2010 9:37 PM
Ben and Tom:
I don't think it works that way, to make conditions to get off Social Security. Maybe you can ask that they disenroll you from Social Security, but once you signed up and started paying into it, did it not lock you in? I doubt that the Feds would ever give you the money back that you paid into it, even if you demanded to be taken off the rolls.
My sister worked for the Postal Inspectors, so she doesn't get Social Security as a former Federal Employee. I am not clear on why. I thought Federal employees were eligible, but apparently they are not. That would be considered double dipping.
My mother used to get about $300 a month in SS, (I think my father had to have something taken out from his checks at Westinghouse) but she used to get $3000+ from her investments and properties. The SS checks were her pin money. When she died, I had a devil of a time getting them to stop the checks for almost a year after she passed. I kept returning them with a letter plus a copy of her death certificate, etc. Finally, the checks stopped, but we got a check for her funeral or something (death benefit). Millionaires get SS, and joke that their checks pay for their liquor bills, and they choose not to opt out of the program. Part of the "fabric of the economy" that people can't opt out of?
I think you will remain in the SS system until you die, and your relatives might have trouble stopping the checks until they file for the death benefit, whether they need it or not to bury you.
Emilie
Port Orchard, WA
Posted by: Emilie at November 12, 2010 7:10 PM
Emilie, Ben was making a joke to make a point. I'm sure he knows that all non-federal government workers are locked into Social Security. What he is saying is that one can get a better return on your money through standard investment practices.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at November 13, 2010 2:26 PM
